“I wouldn’t call myself a conservative, but neither would I own to liberal. I’ll take just plain old “Catholic,” thanks” – writes with the following thought experiment:
Imagine a gay male couple who have been together for 20 years. They live nearby. You know them well, having a friendly non-political neighborly relationship. You borrow the odd egg, watch each other’s pets when somebody is on vacation, maybe chat at the annual 4th of July party. You are an orthodox Christian who runs a bakery business. Now apply the following scenarios:
A) One of the gay guys has a birthday. His partner asks you to bake the cake. Would you?
B) One of the gay guys dies. His partner asks you to bake the cake for the reception after the funeral. Would you?
C) Marriage is suddenly legalized in your state. They marry and ask you to bake the cake. Would you?
Seems to me that if the answer is no, no, and no, then you ought to examine yourself for homophobia.
But if the answer is yes, yes and no – that’s my answer – then you are arguably simply being principled. I can say “yes” to A and B because I can honor their friendship and loyalty to each other, their faithful service to each other over years. However, I say “no” to C because marriage is not an institution that can be defined entirely in terms of affection, loyalty and service. Or even eros or heartfelt private romantic feelings. Marriage includes all those things, but it exists is a social institution because the fertility of male and female potentially creates uniquely public consequences (children).
The left disputes my premise for saying no to C. Fine, let’s have that debate. People of goodwill can disagree.
But we are not even allowed to have that debate. My side’s case is dismissed by the liberal elite because they think people like me are haters.
Given that I want to say yes to situations A and B, I think it’s demonstrable that I’m not a hater or homophobe. I am not frightened of gay people and I do not hate them. I just do not think that what they are doing is marriage, and I think calling what they’re doing “marriage” will obscure what marriage is.
The only clear biblical meta-narrative is about male and female. Sex is an area of Jewish law that Jesus explicitly makes stricter. What we now call the “traditional” view of sexuality was a then-radical idea separating the early church from Roman culture, and it’s remained basic in every branch of Christianity until very recently. Jettisoning it requires repudiating scripture, history and tradition (…)
I take a different view of what they could have known. But yes, the evidence that homosexuality isn’t chosen — along with basic humanity — should inspire repentance for cruelties visited on gay people by their churches. But at Christianity’s bedrock is the idea that we are all in the grip of an unchosen condition, an “original” problem that our wills alone cannot overcome. So homosexuality’s deep origin is not a trump card against Christian teaching.
I was raised by a lesbian couple and had to build bridges to my estranged father in my late twenties. Much of the connection to my father and the benefits of growing up with him were irreparably lost by the time I was a grown man—but at least, I knew who my father was and where to find him. I could salvage my ancestry.
A new generation of children will not even have that consolation I had. Conceived in loveless fertility clinics, gestated in the wombs of women they will never meet, trafficked from poor biological families with the help of complicit governments, “adopted” through a social services system corrupted by money and political pressure, or torn from their birth parents by family court judges who are desperate to please the gay lobby, the new generation of children will be far worse off than I was.
When the debate over gay marriage has receded, when their gay guardians are dead and buried, when the world has moved on, these children will still never be able to recover their heritage.
Someone please tell me if my progression here is inaccurate in any way:
1) Family owners of small-town Indiana pizzeria spend zero time or energy commenting on gay issues.
2) TV reporter from South Bend walks inside the pizzeria to ask the owners what they think of the controversial Religious Restoration Freedom Act. Owner Crystal O’Connor responds, “If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no….We are a Christian establishment.” O’Connor also says—actually promises is the characterization here—that the establishment will continue to serve any gay or non-Christian person that walks through their door.
3) The Internet explodes with insults directed at the O’Connor family and its business, including a high school girls golf coach in Indiana who tweets “Who’s going to Walkerton, IN to burn down #memoriespizza w me?” Many of the enraged critics assert, inaccurately, that Memories Pizza discriminates against gay customers.
4) In the face of the backlash, the O’Connors close the pizzeria temporarily, and say they may never reopen, and in fact might leave the state. “I don’t know if we will reopen, or if we can, if it’s safe to reopen,” Crystal O’Connor tells The Blaze. “I’m just a little guy who had a little business that I probably don’t have anymore,” Kevin O’Connor tells the L.A. Times.
Rod Dreher titles his useful post on this grotesque affair “Into the Christian Closet,” and it’s apt considering the progression above. If only these non-activist restaurateurs had simply kept their views to themselves when asked by a reporter, April Fool’s would have been like any other day for them.
But as it stands, they’re now being trashed not just by social-justice mobs from afar, but by powerful politicians where they live and work. Democratic State Sen. Jim Arnold represents the O’Connors’s district.
What must one take for granted in order for same-sex marriage to be intelligible? (This is not a question about the motives or beliefs—which can seem quite humane—of those who support same-sex marriage.) It is commonly argued that marriage is no longer principally about the procreation and the rearing of children but that it centers instead on the companionship of the couple and the building of a household. The courts have repeatedly accepted this reasoning. And yet, if same-sex marriage is to be truly equal to natural marriage in the eyes of society and the law, then all the rights and privileges of marriage—including those involving the procreation and rearing of children—must in principle belong to both kinds of marriage, irrespective of the motives impelling a couple toward marriage or whether, once married, they exercise these rights and privileges.
With same-sex couples this can be achieved only by technological means. And so the case for companionate marriage has been supplemented again and again by the argument that we must endorse reproductive technologies that eliminate any relevant difference between a male–female couple and a same-sex couple. This elevates these technologies from a remedy for infertility, what they principally have been, to a normative form of reproduction equivalent and perhaps even superior to natural procreation. But if there is no meaningful difference between a male–female couple conceiving a child naturally and same-sex couples conceiving children through surrogates and various technological means, then it follows that nothing of ontological significance attaches to natural motherhood and fatherhood or to having a father and a mother. These roles and relations are not fundamentally natural phenomena integral to human identity and social welfare but are mere accidents of biology overlaid with social conventions that can be replaced by functionally equivalent roles without loss. The implications are enormousexistential changes to the relation between kinship and personal identity, legal redefinitions of the relation between natural kinship and parental rights, and practical, biotechnical innovations that are only beginning to emerge into view and will be defended as necessary for a liberal society.
Whether this is the logical outworking of the metaphysical and anthropological premises of liberalism or a radically new thing (…), it marks a point of no return in American public philosophy. And it effectively brings the civic project of American Christianity to an end.
Everybody who is on the Internet is subject to insult, trolling, hating and cruelty. Most of these online assaults are dominance plays. They are attempts by the insulter to assert his or her own superior status through displays of gratuitous cruelty toward a target.
Clearly, the best way to respond is to step out of the game.
Historically, we reserve special admiration for those who can quiet the self even in the heat of conflict. Abraham Lincoln was caught in the middle of a horrific civil war. It would have been natural for him to live with his instincts aflame — filled with indignation toward those who started the war, enmity toward those who killed his men and who would end up killing him. But his second inaugural is a masterpiece of rising above the natural urge toward animosity and instead adopting an elevated stance.
Tehnologija nam je omogočila, da stojimo sredi dvorane zrcal in povsod vidimo samo sebe. V resnici pa nas internetni algoritmi delajo osamljene in nevarne, ker večajo naš narcisizem s tem, da odstranijo ves svet, ki ni kot mi. Okrepijo lastnosti, ki jih imamo. In ker se v osami in anonimnosti interneta prej pokažejo slabe lastnosti, okrepijo njih.
Drugačno mnenje je šok. V svetu, ki je ves kot jaz, nenadoma zagledamo košček nejaza in srd je strahoten, treba ga je odstraniti, takoj! Grožnje in trolanje postajajo norma. Sodobna komunikacija ni več pogovor, marveč je postala eksorcizem.
There’s much to the view of Punxsutawney as purgatory: Connors goes to his own version of hell, but since he’s not evil it turns out to be purgatory, from which he is released by shedding his selfishness and committing to acts of love.
Ultimately, the story is one of redemption, so it should surprise no one that it speaks to those in search of the same. But there is also a secular, even conservative, point to be made here. Connors’s metamorphosis contradicts almost everything postmodernity teaches. He doesn’t find paradise or liberation by becoming more “authentic,” by acting on his whims and urges and listening to his inner voices. That behavior is soul-killing. He does exactly the opposite: He learns to appreciate the crowd, the community, even the bourgeois hicks and their values. He determines to make himself better by reading poetry and the classics and by learning to sculpt ice and make music, and most of all by shedding his ironic detachment from the world.
For conservatism is about national identity. It is only in the context of a first-person plural that the questions – economic questions included – make sense, or open themselves to democratic argument.
Such was the idea that Edmund Burke tried to spell out 200 years ago. (…) Political wisdom, Burke argued, is not contained in a single head. It does not reside in the plans and schemes of the political class, and can never be reduced to a system. It resides in the social organism as a whole, in the myriad small compromises, in the local negotiations and trusts, through which people adjust to the presence of their neighbours and co-operate in safeguarding what they share. People must be free to associate, to form “little platoons”, to dispose of their labour, their property and their affections, according to their own desires and needs.
But no freedom is absolute, and all must be qualified for the common good. Until subject to a rule of law, freedom is merely “the dust and powder of individuality”. But a rule of law requires a shared allegiance, by which people entrust their collective destiny to sovereign institutions that can speak and decide in their name. This shared allegiance is not, as Rousseau and others argued, a contract among the living. It is a partnership between the living, the unborn and the dead
In other matters, too, it is not the economic cost that concerns the conservative voter but the nation and our attachment to it. Not understanding this, the government has embarked on a politically disastrous environmental programme. For two centuries the English countryside has been an icon of national identity and the loved reminder of our island home. Yet the government is bent on littering the hills with wind turbines and the valleys with high speed railways. Conservative voters tend to believe that the “climate change” agenda has been foisted upon us by an unaccountable lobby of politicised intellectuals. But the government has yet to agree with them, and meanwhile is prepared to sacrifice the landscape if that helps to keep the lobbyists quiet.
I write because I am one of many children with gay parents who believe we should protect marriage. I believe you were right when, during the Proposition 8 deliberations, you said “the voice of those children [of same-sex parents] is important.” I’d like to explain why I think redefining marriage would actually serve to strip these children of their most fundamental rights.
The definition of marriage should have nothing to do with lessening emotional suffering within the homosexual community. If the Supreme Court were able to make rulings to affect feelings, racism would have ended fifty years ago. Nor is this issue primarily about the florist, the baker, or the candlestick-maker, though the very real impact on those private citizens is well-publicized. The Supreme Court has no business involving itself in romance or interpersonal relationships. I hope very much that your ruling in June will be devoid of any such consideration.
Ali, dragi levičarji, razumete perverzijo, ki se dogaja na Mladini? Ta tednik ni proti privatizaciji, ker sovraži Janšo, ni proti privatizaciji zato, ker so partizani umirali za našo svobodo in slovenski jezik, niti ni proti privatizaciji, ker ne prenese kapitalizma, proti je zaradi tega, ker je proti njihov lastnik, politično upravljani zmazek, imenovan NLB! S tega vidika je enačba Mladina = politično upravljana NLB = interesne skupine, ki so penetrirale v vlado, najlepši model za opisovanje motivov Mladine.
Oblast govori o reševanju krize, hkrati pa zaradi socialnega miru marginalizira in v tujino izganja sodobnemu svetu najbolje prilagojen del prebivalstva.
Namesto da smo “mladi” in naivno čakamo, da se “postaramo” – ali pa pristanemo na izgon možganov – se že enkrat opredelimo in politično organizirajmo kot generacija. In sporočimo – dovolj, tudi mi si zaslužimo enake priložnosti. Zaslužimo in izboriti si moramo generacijsko neodvisnost; torej sposobnost sprejemanja lastnih odločitev kot posledice vsaj približne premoženjske neodvisnosti. Naša moralna odgovornost v prvi vrsti ni in ne sme biti do staršev in starih staršev, ampak do lastnih partnerjev in – morda ravno zaradi katastrofalne socialne situacije nerojenih in zato povsem neupoštevanih – otrok. Socialna država je super; ampak veljati mora v istih ključnih točkah za vse, ali pa je ni.
Yet [Greece’s] recent comeback masks deep structural problems. To tidy its books, Athens levied crippling taxes on the middle class and made sharp cuts to government salaries, pensions, and health-care coverage. While ordinary citizens suffered under the weight of austerity, the government stalled on meaningful reforms: the Greek economy remains one of the least open in Europe and consequently one of the least competitive. It is also one of the most unequal.
Greece has failed to address such problems because the country’s elites have a vested interest in keeping things as they are. Since the early 1990s, a handful of wealthy families — an oligarchy in all but name — has dominated Greek politics. These elites have preserved their positions through control of the media and through old-fashioned favoritism, sharing the spoils of power with the country’s politicians. Greek legislators, in turn, have held on to power by rewarding a small number of professional associations and public-sector unions that support the status quo. Even as European lenders have put the country’s finances under a microscope, this arrangement has held.
The fundamental problem facing Greece is not economic growth but political inequality.
I agree entirely with Ryan that libertarianism (“rugged individualism”) is hard to reconcile with Christianity and the history of Christian political thought. His comment, though, highlights two ideas I’m trying to work out within my own thinking on religion and politics.
First, to say that Republicans, especially Christian conservatives, have “given up on America” because they no longer have Tocquevillian ideals is, I think, sort of true — but then, is it not the case that America has given up on itself in that regard? Who really believes in the common good anymore? We have become an atomized nation of individual consumers who believe our preferences must be indulged no matter what. It’s true of the Right as well as the Left. The main reason it’s so hard to talk about the common good is that so few people are willing to recognize an independent authoritative standard for determining that good.
This updated conservative tradition consists of several complementary propositions:
As human beings, our first responsibility lies in stewardship, preserving our common inheritance and protecting that which possesses lasting value. This implies an ability to discriminate between what is permanent and what is transient, between what ought to endure and what is rightly destined for the trash heap. Please note this does not signify opposition to all change—no standing athwart history, yelling Stop—but fostering change that enhances rather than undermines that which qualifies as true.
Conservatives, therefore, are skeptical of anything that smacks of utopianism. They resist seduction by charlatans peddling the latest Big Idea That Explains Everything.
Zgodba o vlačenju Anuške Delić po sodišču postaja bizarna in se spreminja v institucionalni spin, ki je mogoč zgolj zaradi tega, ker je to politično mogoče. Da ne bo pomote: Delićeva, ki, kot smo razkrili na našem portalu, pridobiva informacije kar pri Pristopu in z njimi obdeluje bivše Pristopove poslovne stranke, je v primeru desnih ekstremistov naredila tisto, kar bi vsak novinar moral in k čemur je zavezan – objavila je vse zgodbe.
In bodimo iskreni, objavila jih je še z večjim veseljem, ker je šlo za informacije, ki so neposredno škodile volilni mobilizaciji SDS. Problem pa, institucionalno gledano, ni v Delićevi, ampak v viru, ki je informacije s točno določeno agendo (ki je lahko samo politična) odcurljal do Dela.
Potrebujemo iniciativi Reset in Gremo na volitve na steroidih. Takšni, ki se ekipirata skrbneje in dlje časa od izvirnika in ne ponovita začetniških napak Državljanske liste. Potrebujemo kritično maso razumnih ljudi, ki bi skupaj z ranjeno desno-sredinsko opozicijo, brez Desusa, na volitvah lahko dosegli 51 odstotkov ter izvedli trajne spremembe. Nemogoče? Sploh ne. Naj brez posebnega vrstnega reda in brez vedenja oseb, ki jih bom namočil, naštejem nekaj posameznikov, ki bi jim kot ekipi zaupal svojo podporo in glas: Romani Jordan, Janezu Šušteršiču, Marjanu Batagelju, Blažu Vodopivcu, Bojanu Travnu, Igorju Mastenu, Žigu Turku in Igorju Akrapoviču Bi jim tudi vi? Ne pravim, da se bo takšna politična opcija pojavila. Pravim le, da bi tudi apatični volivci in volivke prišli na volitve in podprli spremembe, če bi zanje ustrezno ponudbo. In da torej ni res, da je vse izgubljeno!
The Putin personality cult appears to be rising. Vyacheslav Volodin, first deputy chief of staff to the president, told the conference Wednesday that Western “attacks against Putin are attacks against Russia.”
He went on to say that Russia’s people understand “that if there is no Putin, there is no Russia.” (…)
Mr. Volodin’s remarks spurred political pundit Stanislav Belkovskiy, a Putin critic, to tell the independent Ekho Moskvy radio station: “The search for Russia’s national idea, which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now it is obvious that Russia’s national idea is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin as an individual.”
It is hard to imagine that identification between state and ruler being made in the U.S. or Western Europe, in private or in public. It is another illustration of how those in power in Russia think differently from their counterparts in the West.
The collapse of Ukraine would be a tremendous loss for NATO, the European Union, and the United States. A victorious Russia would become much more influential within the EU and pose a potent threat to the Baltic states with their large ethnic Russian populations. Instead of supporting Ukraine, NATO would have to defend itself on its own soil. This would expose both the EU and the US to the danger they have been so eager to avoid: a direct military confrontation with Russia. The European Union would become even more divided and ungovernable. Why should the US and other NATO nations allow this to happen?
The argument that has prevailed in both Europe and the United States is that Putin is no Hitler; by giving him everything he can reasonably ask for, he can be prevented from resorting to further use of force. In the meantime, the sanctions against Russia—which include, for example, restrictions on business transactions, finance, and trade—will have their effect and in the long run Russia will have to retreat in order to earn some relief from them.
These are false hopes derived from a false argument with no factual evidence to support it. Putin has repeatedly resorted to force and he is liable to do so again unless he faces strong resistance. Even if it is possible that the hypothesis could turn out to be valid, it is extremely irresponsible not to prepare a Plan B.
Tisto, kar je bilo včasih samoumevno in potem izgnano iz narodovega spomina, počasi a vztrajno spet dobiva prostor pod soncem. Hvala Bogu, očitno postajamo normalni.
Pred par meseci sem slišal osebno pričevanje nekdanjega partizanskega borca iz manjšega kraja v zamejstvu na Goriškem. Pripovedoval je o svojih izkušnjah v partizanskih vrstah, ko se je kot mobiliziran mladoletnik septembra 1943 udeležil bojev na t. i. goriški fronti. Samo za osvežitev spomina: Partizanske enote na Primorskem so želele sredi septembra 1943 zadržati nemški prodor pred Gorico. Toda bile so nepripravljene in preslabo vodene, tako da so nemški okupatorji, ki so zamenjali Italijane, kmalu krvavo zatrli partizanski odpor ter povzročili velike in nepotrebne žrtve.
No, omenjeni možakar je pripovedoval, kako so se nič kaj junaško skrivali v Trnovskem gozdu, tam pri Rijavcih, ko so pač videli silno nemško premoč. In tam, v skalni votlini, je dvanajst primorskih mož in fantov ždelo nekaj dni. Lačni, žejni, prestrašeni. Na dan vseh svetih, 1. novembra popoldne, je eden izmed njih rekel: »Sedaj so naši domači zbrani na domačem pokopališču na grobovih rajnih in molijo, dajmo tudi mi kaj zmoliti za naše rajne.« Iz žepa je najmlajši med njimi potegnil rožni venec, in vsi, prav vsi, so v en glas molili s priprošnjo k Svetogorski Kraljici za rajne.
Treba je začeti znova in projekt narediti na civilizacijski normi, da ima vsak človek pravico do groba, kar izhaja iz pietete in dostojanstva človeka. Obuditi je potrebno sočutje, ki je izraz dobronamernosti človeka in preprečuje zlo, ki ustvarja sovraštvo, da se zadeve ponavljajo. Tu smo na mestu, kjer so se dogajali nasilje in zločini, materam so jemali otroke in ljudi odvažali na morišča v razne jarke in Hude jame. Tu so ljudje umirali in bili tudi ubiti in zakopani. Torej to je kraj, kjer se mora človek zjokati in to dvakrat: prvič zaradi zločinov in drugič zaradi neetičnega odnosa do trupel in neresnega urejanja okolja za prikrivanje resnice.
Se torej splača študirati?
Prepričan sem, da ja. Za take razmisleke ni dovolj analizirati, kako je zdaj, ampak se je treba ozreti v prihodnost. Slovenija bo morala doživeti svojo katarzo in prav zato, ker smo tukaj, namenoma nisem omenil možnosti odhoda v tujino. V Sloveniji radi živimo in samo skupaj jo bomo lahko premaknili z mrtve točke. Vseh stvari se preprosto ne da znanstveno dokazati, kaj šele napovedati. V nekatere stvari je treba preprosto verjeti. In glagol »splačati se« nima zgolj finančnega pomena.
According to a recent study conducted by Bond University in Australia, sharks are nine times as likely to attack and kill men than they are women. If sinister motivation is attributed for this disparity, as is done in the cases of sex and racial disparities, we can only conclude that sharks are sexist. Another sex disparity is despite the fact that men are 50 percent of the population and so are women, men are struck by lightning six times as often as women. I wonder what whoever is in charge of lightning has against men.
Another gross statistical disparity is despite the fact that Jews are less than 3 percent of the U.S. population and a mere 0.2 percent of the world’s population, between 1901 and 2010, Jews were 35 percent of American and 22 percent of the world’s Nobel Prize winners.
If America’s diversity worshippers see underrepresentation as “probative” of racial discrimination, what do they propose be done about overrepresentation? After all, overrepresentation and underrepresentation are simply different sides of injustice. If those in one race are overrepresented, it might mean they’re taking away what rightfully belongs to another race. For example, is it possible that Jews are doing things that sabotage the chances of a potential Indian, Alaska Native or Mexican Nobel Prize winner? What about the disgraceful lack of diversity in professional basketball and ice hockey? There’s not even geographical diversity in professional ice hockey; not a single player can boast of having been born and raised in Hawaii, Louisiana or Mississippi.
Political correctness thus results as a confusion of political word for political action—so saying the wrong words is doing the wrong action. If I say something that disagrees with your position or lifestyle, it may be taken as an actual assault on you, the person.
Virtues, however, cannot be gained by “identifying” with others psychologically—a virtue is the skill of an action performed repeatedly over time. As Aristotle said, since we are what we repeatedly do, character is a habit and not an attitude. To fight this decadent culture in the academy, pointing it out and criticizing it is not sufficient. As Roger Kimball notes, “those who want to retake the university must devote themselves [to] cultivating those virtues” of candidness and courage, “and perhaps even more to cultivating the virtue of patience, capitalizing wherever possible on whatever local opportunities present themselves” in exercising them (Tenured Radicals, xlvii).
We must give up on the hope of restoring the past in this culture. It’s not that some aspects of the past shouldn’t be reclaimed, but rather that doing so, at least at a society-wide level, is not feasible at this point in time. The more we act as if it were so, the greater our losses will be once we definitively lose an unwinnable battle. This “take back America” stuff is self-deluding nostalgia, and the more conservatives believe it, the worse off they will be.
Ne razumem, zakaj so sicer inteligentni ljudje pripravljeni vedno znova ponavljati ene in iste neumnosti oziroma laži, ko gre denimo za razliko med zasebnim in državnim lastništvom podjetij? Jih ideologija povsem zaslepi? Ali gre morda za kako drugačno dojemanje tega, kaj je dobro, uspešno in za regijo pomembno podjetje?
Marcel Štefančič, jr. je danes v Studiu City izjavil:
“V Sloveniji imamo dva farmacevtska giganta, eden je Krka drugi je Lek. Krke nismo prodali, Lek smo prodali. Ali opazite kakšno razliko med njima? Vam jaz povem: od Krke živi kompletna regija, od Leka nima nihče nič.” (RTV 4D – Studio City, 22. sept. 2014)
Ampak že če preberete samo prve zadetke za geslo “Lek in Krka” v spletnem iskalniku, dobite povsem drugačno sliko.
Dr. Cerar, ko ste leta 1990 s skupino študentov raziskovali te umore, ste pogumno in odločno predlagali, da bi zoper storilce vložili ovadbo, saj je jasno, »da sodijo ustrelitve na meji bolj pod opis dejanja v 46. členu KZ RS, kot pa v izvrševanju ustave in zakonov. Omenjeni 46. člen namreč povsem nedvoumno določa: ‘Kdor komu vzame življenje, se kaznuje z zaporom najmanj petih let.’« Vaš predlog je prav tako naletel na gluha ušesa. Vendar časi se spreminjajo in zdaj imate lepo priložnost, da kot odrasel moški na visokem položaju uresničite zamisli skromnega, a drznega in prodornega mladeniča …
Glede na vaše odlično stališče iz leta 1990 vas, dr. Cerar, prosim, da bi spodbudili g. Maslešo, da bi le našel dovolj moči in spoznal, da je bilo njegovo zanikanje zločinov na meji nadvse sporno dejanje in da naj zoper sebe in druge sodelujoče pri ubojih na meji napiše ovadbo (npr. s temi zločini se je še pred leti javno hvalil general Marijan Kranjc).
Predvsem pa naj novo državno vodstvo ponovno presodi, ali lahko človek, ki zanika zločine, pri katerih je sodeloval, še vodi Vrhovno sodišče RS.
If Orwell stands as the model leftist who exposed the horrors his own side was willing to commit, Herzen stands as one who went along even though he knew better. More than a limousine liberal, he was a sapphire socialist. In spite of all his natural skepticism, he was willing to overcome it—heroically, he thought—rather than be seen agreeing with the wrong people.
That said, it is no less true that Herzen was aware of this very weakness. “I hate phrases to which we [radicals] have grown used, like Christians to the Creed. They appear moral and good on the surface but they bind thought.”
Ali se je raznoterim činom vseh vrst italijanskih vojaških sil, ki so si tako strastno želele prihod svetega očeta na kostnico v Redipulji in si preko vojaškega ordinariata obdržale organizacijo dogodka tudi ob tihem nasprotovanju vernikov krajevne nadškofije, morda papeževo razmišljanje zdelo izzivalno?
Odgovora nimamo. Ostal pa nam je globok vtis, da je papež s svojimi besedami, pa tudi s samim potekom svojega sobotnega obiska, ko je pred osrednjo svečanostjo v Redipulji obiskal še avstro-ogrsko pokopališče v Foljanu, kjer dejansko počivajo ‘naši predniki’ (kdo izmed naših se je vojskoval v italijanskih vrstah!), pospravil z vsako ceneno nacionalno-vojaško retoriko. “Vojna je norost”… “in zdaj je čas joka”. In pika. Najbrž se je papež Frančišek zaradi istih razlogov izognil tudi običajni toplini do vernikov, saj se ni podal mednje niti ob prihodu niti ob odhodu: to ni bila ne vojaška parada ne praznik, česar tudi marsikateri vernik resnici na ljubo ni dojel.
Osnovna šola (in seveda celotna vzgojno-izobraževalna vertikala) je bolj ščitenje privilegija toplih malic in vožnje na delo, dopusta in povsem zagotovljenega delovnega mesta, njegovega lastništva, kakor realizacija tega, kar potrebuje družba in mladi ljudje: dobre izobrazbe in vzgoje.
Zato je slovenska osnovna šola je podobna razvajenemu in z boleznijo zaznamovanemu otroku: imamo brez dvoma najbolj bogat predmetnik, najbolj obsežne učne načrte in najbolj centralizirano osnovno šolo v Evropi. Težko je našteti vse njene posebnosti, dejstvo pa je, da bi ob ostri redukciji vseh dobrot, ki jih uživa zdaj, brez dvoma padla v komo. Zato bo potrebna dolgotrajna dieta, da se bo vzpostavilo stanje, ki ne bo več ogrožalo normalnega vzgojno-izobraževalnega sistema.
Doesn’t “progressive” reflect the spirit of the Progressive Era a century ago, when the country benefited from the righteous efforts of muckrakers and others who fought big-city political bosses, attacked business monopolies and promoted Good Government?
The era was partly about that. But philosophically, the progressive movement at the turn of the 20th century had roots in German philosophy (Hegel and Nietzsche were big favorites) and German public administration (Woodrow Wilson’s open reverence for Bismarck was typical among progressives). To simplify, progressive intellectuals were passionate advocates of rule by disinterested experts led by a strong unifying leader. They were in favor of using the state to mold social institutions in the interests of the collective. They thought that individualism and the Constitution were both outmoded.
It is that core philosophy extolling the urge to mold society that still animates progressives today—a mind-set that produces the shutdown of debate and growing intolerance that we are witnessing in today’s America.
Predvsem pa se politika z etiko nima kaj ukvarjati. Naloga politike je, da poskrbi za pravno državo, ki bo pravočasno in pošteno kaznovala ljudi, ki prestopijo meje razumljivo napisanih in logičnih zakonov. Ko pa politiki začnejo govoriti, da morajo ljudje postati bolj etični, pa to pomeni, da želijo s svojimi instrumenti – ki so po definiciji instrumenti oblasti in prisile – spreminjati ljudi same.
Politik, ki si za cilj postavi spreminjati naravo ljudi, slej ko prej postane bodisi dalajlama bodisi stalinist.
Words you probably never thought you’d read in the Telegraph. Words which, as a Gladstonian Liberal, I never thought I’d write.
This sort of utterly amoral screw-everyone capitalism has become much more prevalent in the last 15 years. Our financial elite is now totally out of control. They learned nothing from the crisis, except that the rest of us were stupid enough to give them a second chance. And, now, having plucked all the “low hanging fruit,” they’re destroying the middle classes for profit.
Our current problems have their roots in the early 80s. While much of what Reagan and Thatcher did was necessary, the trouble is that they set a deregulatory train in motion which, over the last couple of decades has dismantled so much of the legal framework that protected us from greedy scuzzballs.
The middle classes went along with it. We were sick of the Left, tired of powerful unions and, besides, very few us could remember the inequality of the 1920s that gave rise to many of these regulations in the first place. Also, vain fools that we were, we identified upwards. We thought the elite had our interests at heart. The 0.1% must have found this pretty cute. They knew the truth. We weren’t their pals, we were just at the end of the line for the financial blood-letting.
I’d like to remind you of Alasdair MacIntyre’s definition of emotivism in After Virtue:
“What is the key to the social content of emotivism? It is the fact that emotivism entails the obliteration of any genuine distinction between manipulative and non-manipulative social relations. Consider the contrast between, for example, Kantian ethics and emotivism on this point. For Kant–and a parallel point could be made about many earlier moral philosophers–the difference between a human relationship uninformed by morality and one so informed is precisely the difference between one in which each person treat the other primarily as a means to his or her ends and one in which one treats each other as an end.”
Walsh almost exclusively uses others as means to his own end of scoring points in the culture wars (and boosting internet traffic). This is why his writing is so banal. It does not challenge anyone to drop their defenses.
In the end Walsh becomes like his enemies, because in his rivalries he plays a zero-sum cultural warrior game of ‘either me or the other’ (I just clicked on a link to an interview with him some random site and the popup ad predictably read “fight the liberal media”). Perhaps the only heuristic value of Walsh’s writing lies in the way that it suggests an overlap between MacIntyre‘s discussion of emotivism and Girard‘s discussion of mimetic rivalry.
Za konec pa še naravnost genialni zapis Carla Truemana v First Things, ki ga zaradi kratkosti objavljamo kar v celoti:
Britain’s Daily Telegraph reports that anti-incest laws in Germany could be struck down on the grounds that they constitute an unacceptable intrusion into the right to sexual self-determination. The narrow context is the case of a brother and sister who have lived together for years and have four children. The wider context is the very meager basis upon which laws relating to sexual ethics are now built.
In a world where consent provides the only de facto limit to acceptable sexual ethics, this legal move has a certain obvious legal and cultural logic. If the brother and sister are in love, why should they not live together in a sexual partnership? Even the pragmatic argument from the risk of congenital defects in children is irrelevant: birth control and abortion are the obvious answers which this present age would give.
In fact, it is not so much the legitimation of incest in itself as it is the collapse of the boundaries of sexual taboos given our current ethical logic which makes the case significant. The question of consent is itself surely a complex one when it comes to sexual morality and even this might soon be faced with a serious challenge. Take, for example, bestiality (or, to use the more anodyne modern term, zoophilia). I regularly eat cows, pigs, sheep and chickens whose consent to be part of my diet is (I assume) rarely if ever sought before they arrive on my dinner plate. The law as it stands clearly does not recognize the need for a cow to give permission before it is slaughtered and turned into a hamburger. One assumes that it would not require its consent for a less drastic fate.
A thought thus comes to mind if any notion of sexual ethics is not to vanish in its entirety: Either consent is not a sufficient basis for a sexual ethic, or eating meat needs to be outlawed as soon as possible.
No, leta 1991, ko je Slovenija stopala na pot – žal le navidezne, ampak to je že druga tema –, demokracije, je bila sramotna sodba iz leta 1947, ki je uničila življenje Angele Vode in večine drugih udeležencev čarovniškega Nagodetovega procesa, končno uradno razveljavljena, Angela pa je bila posthumno oprana vseh krivd in sramote. A tudi to nikoli ne bo spremenilo dejstva, da je ta oseba morala celo življenje strahotno trpeti in na koncu ponižujoče umreti. Od lakote. Ja, od lakote. V Jugoslaviji, kjer ste vi imeli vse, kajne? Ah, verjamem, seveda ste imeli vse. Tam, čez mejo, ste res imeli vse. Tudi referenco … današnje združene levice. Ah da, ravno maja prihodnje leto bo minilo natanko 30 let, ko je Angela Vode umrla od lakote. Gospica sodnica Roblek, ki jo citiram na začetku tega sestavka, naj se malo zamisli, koliko je bilo pred 30 leti torej vredno zaupanje slovenskega sodstva!
Short of reaching the Moon, today’s Russia does not have the option of new territories elsewhere. Striking back in its habitual sphere of domination only wastes resources that should go into starting afresh. Like pre-WWI Ottoman Empire (and the Austrian), Russia is stuck in the stage of half-hearted reforms alternating with retrenchment, all the while trying to recover past glory.
Like during the Ottoman decay, no external power wishes to promote a collapse of Russia – the result would be too messy and unpredictable.
Like during the Ottoman decay, no external power wishes to promote a collapse of Russia – the result would be too messy and unpredictable. Short of outside jolts, such empires can last. But external jolts do occur. Sometimes the decaying empire unintentionally triggers them by trying to strike back. Germany did not unleash the First World War; Austria did – technologically third class, poorly organized, inept but pugnacious Austria. This was akin to today’s Russia, apart from nuclear weapons, another feature Russia inherited from better days.
This is the broader framework for viewing Russia’s recent actions. We have here another case of a socio-economically decaying society, still mired in nostalgia, still waiting for its Atatürk or de Gaulle. This decaying structure is still capable of considerable mischief.
In sacred architecture, the building and the spaces within serve to connect users to a deeper reality that transcends its walls. They function as a gateway from the material world to a spiritual realm–the focus is on the eternal, not the object that portends to represent it. In a secular context like Modernism, the object is the thing itself, and all meaning is tied directly to that object.
Naj vas ne preseneti, če bo Evropa poizkuse Židana, Erjavca in vseh ostalih razumela na način, da je v dolini Šentflorjanski normalno, da revidiramo sezname, v kolikor niso iz njega izbrani kandidati, ki so po volji najmočnejšim političnim komolčarjem.
Ambiciozna vlada, ki bi želela delati v dobro ljudi, bi si za cilj postavila, da bo v štiriletnem mandatu davčno breme na delo zmanjšala z zdajšnjih 42,5 odstotka pod povprečje OECD (ki je 35,9 odstotka). To bi bilo najprej solidarno, saj bi vsaka odstotna točka davčne razbremenitve povprečnemu zaposlenemu prinesla 208 evrov več letnega dohodka, dobro pa bi bilo tudi za gospodarstvo, ki bi tako lažje motiviralo zaposlene in privabilo naložbe iz tujine, ki jih krvavo potrebujemo, saj razvojnega kapitala trenutno v Sloveniji pač ni dovolj. Politiki bi lahko nabirali celo javnomnenjske točke, sklepali dogovore s socialnimi partnerji o tem, koliko prihranka od sproščenih dajatev naj gre delavcem, koliko delodajalcem in kar je podobne maškarade (čeprav je trapasto, da eno in drugo sploh birokratsko delimo, saj gre tako oboje iz iste vreče tistega, kar zaposleni zasluži). Za priboljšek bi bil zadovoljen še Bruselj, ki bi opazil, da se je Slovenija končno odločila celo preseči kakšno od priporočil, ki izražajo zgolj najbolj nujno.
A far more serious person, the dissident Russian analyst Andrei Piontkovsky, has recently published an article arguing, along lines that echo Zhirinovsky’s threats, that Putin really is weighing the possibility of limited nuclear strikes — perhaps against one of the Baltic capitals, perhaps a Polish city — to prove that NATO is a hollow, meaningless entity that won’t dare strike back for fear of a greater catastrophe. Indeed, in military exercises in 2009 and 2013, the Russian army openly “practiced” a nuclear attack on Warsaw.
War in Europe is Not a Hysterical Idea – , The Washigton Post
Danes je moto dneva povprečnost. Danes seveda nihče z IQ, višjim od sobne temperature, ne bi upal Slovenije več postaviti v bližino kakšnega svetilnika uspešnosti. (Izjema je Alenka Bratušek, ki še kar misli, da nas je njena vlada pripeljala v nekakšen trajen gospodarski orgazem.) Pač pa nas danes vsi, na čelu s politiki levice, »resnimi ekonomisti« in »resnimi mediji«, prepričujejo, da je v Sloveniji stanje čisto povprečno, obdavčitev je čisto povprečna, obremenitev plač je čisto povprečna, kriza je čisto povprečna (itak je uvožena iz ZDA), rast je čisto povprečna, zadolženost je čisto povprečna, stroški javnega sektorja so čisto povprečni, brezposelnost je čisto povprečna, državna lastnina je čisto povprečna, znanje naših otrok je čisto povprečno, vraga, še nesposobnost naše politike naj bi bila čisto povprečna. In če smo čisto povprečni, smo torej čisto O. K. in neke resne spremembe niso potrebne. In da bo natančno jasno, katere spremembe še posebej niso potrebne, je Mladina celo spet začela neskrupulozno in primitivno pogrevati stare pravljice o grdih domobrancih, češ vsakdo, kdor podpira privatizacijo in prilagajanje normam EU, je v resnici kolaborant in izdajalec, če že ne to, pa vsaj en ušiv hlapec. Kako nazadnjaško, predmoderno, blut-und-boden, res vredno tako imenovane progresivne novolevičarske publikacije.
Trdim, da sistemsko preprečujemo, da bi imeli boljše politike. Razmeroma maloštevilen parlament le majhnemu številu ljudi omogoča preživljanje s politiko. Fluktuacija v parlamentu je velika, to preprečuje, da bi se ljudje s poslansko funkcijo gradili. Za ministra ni obvezno, da je izvoljen kot poslanec. Plače politikov, zlasti na izvršilnih mestih, so demagoško nizke. Zapenjanje pri financiranju strank še bolj zmanjšuje možnosti za ekonomsko preživetje v politiki in financiranje ustrezne strokovne podpore. Volilni sistem tisto malo politikov razprši v veliko strank, to pomeni, da skoraj v nobeni ni kritične mase – ne pameti ne denarja.
Vzorci prejšnjega sistema živijo naprej. Tam so partija in njeni sateliti razpolagali z dovolj velikim številom delovnih mest, da so se na njih lahko gradili politiki. Celoten samoupravni delegatski sistem, ki je zakrival partijsko diktaturo, je bil amaterski, jedro pa je bilo profesionalno. Stari mački danes odhajajo v pokoj. A naslednice partije imajo vsaj nekaj ustanov, fakultet in inštitutov, kjer se njihovi kadri, kot pravijo, »sončijo«, ko niso v politiki. Na drugi strani sta ducat, dva kariernih politikov in še amaterji, ki sem in tja nekaj pametujemo. Nimamo razvitega ekosistema think-tankov, kjer bi se razvijale politike in o njih tekla široka družbena debata, na katere bi se politiki lahko strokovno naslonili in od koder bo prišla, ko bo, politika 2.0.
Vse to zmanjšuje intelektualno raven in akcijsko sposobnost politike, da bi urejala javne stvari v državi. Na mesto politike vstopajo interesne skupine in neformalni centri moči, ki niso od nikogar izvoljeni in nikomur odgovorni. Politika je samo za vse kriva.
Kako ste prišli do liberalizma kot tipični socialistični klon v Sloveniji: ali skozi LDS »liberalizem« ali skozi gospodarski liberalizem (prosti trg)?
Ne eno ne drugo. Skozi zdravo kmečko pamet, bi rekel. Predvsem preko spletnega foruma Financ, na katerem smo v tistih časih (10 do 15 let nazaj) zelo kvalitetno debatirali o perečih problemih Slovenije na področju borze, gospodarstva in politike. Šele naknadno sem izvedel, da se tej smeri razmišljanja reče liberalizem. Sam bi to poimenoval zdrav razum. Veliko vlogo pri usmeritvi foruma v to smer pa je imel takratni urednik Financ Črt Jakhel.
Če lahko pritrdimo dejstvu, da se je v 20. stoletju na nemški strani odpor do Slovencev podkrepil z rasnimi teorijami, pa moramo tudi priznati, da se je na slovenski strani podkrepil z enačenjem nacionalnega in razrednega sovražnega. Ko je marksistična definicija razrednega boja postavila enačaj, Slovenec = kmet in se je sovraštvo do višjih stanov povezalo z nacionalnim sovraštvom. Nemci in v manjši meri Italijani so tako ”postali” zatiralci par excellence. To se je pokazalo tudi pri sovraštvu do Nemcev, ki je najverjetneje vsaj delno dobilo svoj izraz pri ravnanju po drugi svetovni vojni, saj vsega spet ne gre povezati z maščevanjem nad okupatorjem, tako kot ne gre vsega prebivalstva nemškega izvora in/ali identitete imeti za naciste.
There may be lessons in Jeremiah and Jewish history for Christians and others concerned about their place in modern society. These can be sketched by three ideas.
First, internal exiles should resist the temptation to categorically reject the mainstream. That does not mean avoiding criticism. But it must be criticism in the spirit of common peace rather than condemnation. Jeremiah is famous as the etymological root of the jeremiad. Yet his most scathing criticisms are directed against his own people who have failed in their special calling of righteousness, not the “mainstream” culture. /…/
Finally, Jewish tradition provides a counterpoint to the dream of restoring sacred authority. At least in the diaspora, Jews have demanded the right to live as Jews—but not the imposition of Jewish law or practices on others. MacIntyre evokes historical memories of Christendom that are deeply provocative to many good people, including Jews. The Jeremiah option, on the other hand, represents a commitment to pluralism: the only serious possibility in a secular age like ours.
Unlike the military, who are trained in nonviolent options for conflict resolution, the police often lack such knowledge. Bonnie Kristian expounded this failure and reasons behind systematic police brutality earlier this summer, noting also that cops are rarely held accountable for abuse. “Only one out of every three accused cops are convicted nationwide, while the conviction rate for civilians is literally double that.”
The entrenched racial injustice behind Michael Brown’s death will be difficult to root out, as it has been over centuries of American history. But the decades of policy that allowed for police abuse of Brown, and his town’s peaceful protesters, could be reversed—and if the public outcry over Ferguson is anything to judge by, Americans will be keeping a closer eye on the police in the coming years.
The media’s handling of this case was no surprise: political correctness rules in America’s newsrooms. But imagine a hypothetical crime: two clean-cut black couples go into University McDonald’s during the daytime – and are viciously attacked by a mob of whites. An international media circus would erupt! Big-time journalist from all over the world would descend on College Station to deal with the deplorable state of America’s race relations caused by bigoted whites. President Obama would weigh in with a few comments about America’s racial sins; and Attorney General Eric Holder – just like with the Ferguson disturbances – would travel to College Station, where Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be leading protest marches.
But the narrative they’re promoting is false.
It obscures where most of the hate is coming from. Crime statistics have long reveled the real problem: high levels of black-on-black violence, followed by black-on-white violence and mob attacks — and the latter has been on the increase at an alarming rate, underscoring deep pathologies in a growing black-thug subculture — even as liberals in the mainstream media and Washington are unwilling to acknowledge this fact.
There’s no better example of that than Henry Louis “Skip” Gates, Jr., the Harvard professor who was arrested at his own house in Cambridge in 2009 by a white police officer responding to a report of a burglary. “Gates is as respectable and renowned as any black person in the U.S. and he is not shielded from this type of harassment despite being very affluent and even more prestigious,” says Dawson.
Gates is perceived as “respectable” for another reason, too: He preferssportcoats to baggy pants. On that day in 2009, he was wearing a red polo and dark slacks, and still he was cuffed and thrown in jail. No amount of grooming changed the fact that he was a black man in America.
To kar se v zadnjih letih proti moji krščanski skupnosti dogaja v moji rojstni deželi Iraku in v mestu Mosul, od koder izhajam, je genocid po vseh pravilih, je zločin in še ena črna stran več v zgodovini Islama in muslimanov. Na tisoče ljudi je ubitih, družine so uničene, ženske posiljene, otroci zasužnjeni, hiše napadene, trgovine ukradene, cerkve iz prvih stoletij krščanstva napadane in zažgane.
Resnica je, da se kristjanom v Iraku zelo slabo godi, da jih ne bo ostalo veliko v Iraku, da maloštevilni, ki ostajajo prosijo pomoč, saj ne vedo, kakšna prihodnost jih čaka. Egoistično bi želel, da moji bratje kristjani ne zapustijo Iraka, ker nočem izgubiti svojih korenin in naše dvatisočletne zgodovine. Po drugi strani pa jim tega ne morem direktno zapovedati. Sam namreč živim tukaj v Španiji dokaj varno, zares trpijo pa oni.
***Evangelijski kristjani, ki živijo na območju spopadov, so se znašli v nezavidljivi situaciji. Proruski uporniki so se zavezali, da bodo branili “sveto pravoslavje” in njegove tradicije pred vsakim zahodnjaškim vplivom in evangelijskimi “heretiki”, ki da kvarno vplivajo na edine prave ruske narodne vrednote. Kot poroča Sergej Rahuba, pravijo separatisti, da se bodo bojevali proti vsakemu heretiku, vsakemu protestantu in vsakomur, ki predstavlja nemoralne zahodne vrednote. Evangelijski kristjani, pa ne le oni, so torej postali smrtni sovražniki edinih pravih ruskih vrednot.Prišlo je že do zaplemb protestantskih cerkva, ugrabitev in brutalnih umorov. V mesecu juliju so uporniki ugrabili štiri prostovoljce, ki so delali za krščanski radio in jih pretepli do smrti. 9. junija so oboroženi uporniki med nedeljskim bogoslužjem vdrli v evangelijsko cerkev v Slavjansku in odpeljali v neznano štiri mlade pridigarje. Njihova trupla so pozneje našli v masovni grobnici zraven pediatrične bolnišnice.
Sam nisem voznik, zato vsaki kritiki, ki jo naslovim na samozavestnega slovenskega voznika, sledi: »Ko boš imel vozniški izpit, boš že razumel!« Dober voznik ne potrebuje legitimacije drugega, dovolj mu je dejstvo, da je on voznik in vozi tako, kot je pač v navadi v teh krajih. Legitimacije ne pridobi z odgovorno soudeležbo v občem prostoru prometa, kjer so pravila jasna in vsakemu udeležencu že prej znana, temveč sam od sebe, v neke vrste cehovski solidarnosti, s tiho zavestjo, da si to lahko privošči, ker je močnejši. Ni promet kot občost tista, ki nekomu podeli status dobrega voznika, temveč je dober voznik tisti, ki ustvarja stanje v prometu.
S takimi dobrimi vozniki se srečujemo na vsakem ovinku svojega bivanja. Ko se pogajamo z občinskimi politiki in lokalnimi veljaki, ko poskušamo sodelovati z odgovornimi v javnih inštitucijah na področju kulture in drugih družbenih dejavnostih, ko se moramo meniti s poldržavnimi gospodarstveniki, študentskimi funkcionarji itd. Nihče se ne počuti kot del neke občosti, da je odgovoren do nje, in da bo legitimacijo, ali dela dobro ali ne, dobil ravno v tem, ko bodo vsi njeni udeleženci bolj optimalno delovali. Ne, že samo dejstvo, da so se prebili do neke pozicije in počnejo stvari tako, kot je v navadi, je čisto dovoljšnje upravičenje za njihovo nadaljnje delovanje.
Redukcija politike na boj med klientelami je, res, značilnost Vzhodne Evrope. In sploh perifernih držav. To pa se dogaja prav zato, ker te države niso vzpostavile učinkovitega mehanizma izmenjave elit. Ravno zato, ker v premnogih družbenih podsistemih vlada kadrovska inertnost, postane skrajna politizacija edini način, kako stvari premakniti iz mrtve točke. Politični boj se sprevrže v borbo za pozicije v javnem sektorju in paradržavnih strukturah, saj se zdi, da po normalni poti, prek kriterijev meritokratske selekcije, ni mogoče spremeniti ničesar. Javni sektor postane sistem dodeljevanja rent in sinekur političnim privržencem, ki v zameno skrbijo za širjenje »ideološke« (beri: kulturnobojne) megle, ki zakriva, za kaj v resnici gre. To stanje je gojišče vse bolj nezmernih idej o raznih »neoliberalnih revolucijah« – ki pa ne morejo priti do besede drugače kot z jezikom kulturnega boja, kar je voda na mlin taistim predatorskim elitam. Začarani krog.
Še vedno sem prepričan, da sta SDS in Janša glavna za kakršenkoli preobrat na bolje v Sloveniji. Na žalost pa kaže, da SDS sporočila volitev še ni dojela. Po objavi rezultatov so izdali javno sporočilo, ki še najbolj spominja na kakšen razglas zvezne partije v času, ko je nekdanja država že razpadala po vseh šivih, in se je nanašal na neko resničnost, ki je živela samo še v glavah zveznih funkcionarjev. Ko bo Janševa obsodba razveljavljena, mu Slovenija ne bo razvila rdeče preproge in ga povabila, naj postane imperator. Na žalost bo odziv sistema in tudi velike večine prebivalcev »business as usual«. Kardinal Rode je spomnil, da sta tudi Gandi in Mandela po prihodu iz zapora prevzela vodenje preporoda države. Vendar je prvi pogoj za to, da se nekaj podobnega zgodi tudi pri nas, da Janša pride iz zapora vsaj kot pol Gandi ali pol Mandela. Če pride kot stoodstotni Janša ali celo 150-odstotni Janša, se bo čedalje večji del zmernega volilnega spektra, tistega, ki ga je za premierski položaj podprl leta 2004, odvračal od njega.
Če smo demokrati, imamo zato samo eno možnost: spoštovati voljo ljudi in strpno sprejeti dejstvo, da je Janez Janša poslanec. Ali so njegovi volilci normalni? Da. Preprosto verjamejo, da je nedolžen in po krivem obsojen. In glede na šlamastiko slovenskega pravosodja, ki je prepleteno z mafijskimi omrežji pokvarjenih sodnic in sodnikov, imajo svoje argumente. Ali je vso to dogajanje zdravo za Slovenijo? Niti slučajno.
SDS je stranka, ki je danes ni mogoče vključiti v politični proces vodenja države. Je stranka destrukcije, ki s svojim pomembnim deležem pridobljenim na volitvah zaradi svoje strategije krči parlamentarni prostor. Je stranka, ki nima namena sodelovati in se pogovarjati z nikomer. Niti z najbližjimi, celo partnerji. Tako kot ima Italija težave z destruktivnostjo predstavnikov Beppe Grilla, ima tudi Slovenija težavo s tem, da petina parlamentarnega prostora nima namena sodelovati pri vodenju države. Tej petini pa se je sedaj pridružila tudi Združena levica, ki destrukcijo vodi z drugega kota. Zato je maneverski prostor pomembno zožen in terja še toliko več dialoga med preostalimi zmernimi političnimi silami. Ta strategija SDS je z vidika volilnega rezultata samomorilska. Zaradi take kampanje so samo na zadnjih volitvah izgubili vsaj pet odstotkov. Z vidika politike, ki hoče uspeh na volitvah ter nato vladati, je taka strategija torej nespametna.
Toda ta strategija je z njihovega vidika povsem utemeljena in celo edina možna etična drža.
I recognize the Fox Geezer Syndrome these readers identify. This is what happens when conservatism becomes an ideology instead of an approach to life. It indicates an extremely unconservative temperament, frankly. /…/ These Fox Geezers may well be conservative in their politics, right down the line. What they’re doing, though, is allowing politics to consume their minds and their entire lives, such that they are making impossible the kinds of things that true conservatives ought to be dedicated to conserving: that is, the permanent things, like family. I have been around Fox Geezers before, and I see absolutely no difference between them and the kind of self-righteous loudmouths on the left that make reasonable discussion impossible, because all problems are reduced to a conflict between Good and Evil, and decided in advance.
The tragedy — and I think it is exactly that — is that the elderly often have great wisdom to share with the younger generations, to say nothing of the fact that it is they who have the long view, and who ought to understand how important it is to nurture bonds among family members, especially across the generations. Yet in these cases, it is they who behave like teenagers and twentysomethings, full of piss and vinegar and a toxic certainty, plus a radioactive impulse to crusade. What they lack is the principal conservative virtue: Prudence.
It’s not that abortion opponents don’t really care about abortion as such, but only about sexual mores, but that political language is necessarily corrupt because its purpose is pornographic in the sense that it is intended to provoke action, not increase understanding.
I really, really do believe that the more seriously you take the proposition that abortion is categorically immoral, the more morally imperative it is for you not to hitch your wagon to the star of either political party. Nothing is more corrupting of the anti-abortion cause than its subsumption into a culture war that is fundamentally – fundamentally – about making it easier for politicians to get re-elected.
It is not an accident that the three key planks of the Left-wing outlook today – the anti-Israel anti-war sentiment, the shallow anti-capitalism of Occupy, and the worship of those who leak info from within the citadels of power – should all have had issues with anti-Semitism. It is because the left, feeling isolated from the public and bereft of any serious means for understanding modern political and economic affairs, has bought into a super-simplistic, black-and-white, borderline David Icke view of the world as a place overrun and ruled by cabals and cults and sinister lobby groups. And who has always, without fail, been the final cabal, the last cult, to find themselves shouldering the ultimate blame for the warped, hidden workings of politics, the economy and foreign turmoil? You got it – the Jews.
Up until now, even European politicians who were paying attention to developments in Hungary — German Chancellor Angela Merkel, for example — believed that they didn’t have any political capital to spare amid the euro crisis. It was difficult enough for European leaders to bully Greek governments into drastic spending cuts; they didn’t want to be seen lecturing small central European nations on democratic norms as well. But given the current perception, right or wrong, that the continent’s financial crisis is no longer acute, Brussels and Europe’s bigger states may finally get serious about Orban. They should understand that the new ideological conflict — liberal versus illiberal Europe — is a greater danger to the foundations of the EU than the euro crisis. Of course money matters — but a rising antiliberalism inside the EU, inspired and materially supported by Putin, could tear the Union apart morally and, ultimately, politically. Orban has done the rest of Europe a favor by spelling out his illiberal intentions so openly — and making it clear just how high the stakes are.
I’d respectfully argue that libertarianism is neither dangerous nor doomed, and that people who think otherwise are misled by a double standard they use when analyzing this political faction. When they write about a “libertarian moment,” they act as if it would mean the immediate embrace of an extreme, ideologically pure version of a philosophy that most actual sympathizers embrace with pragmatic moderation. Yes, if the most radical faction of any ideology that has never before exercised power was suddenly put in charge, that might well end in disaster. But in the real world, libertarian ideas will only ever be implemented partially in a system of checks and balances where modest reforms are difficult to achieve, never mind sweeping, rapid changes. It’s true, but trivially so, that neither a libertarian nor a liberal nor conservative utopia is coming. But liberals and conservatives exercise power regularly, so no one is under the silly illusion that their ascendance would entail a pure ideological program untempered by reality.
“Is libertarian economics at all realistic?” Krugman asks, as if the question is coherent. There are deep disagreements among libertarians about economic policy. There is never a moment when an entire economic philosophy comes up for a vote. It may just be that libertarian thinkers are correct on the merits of some policies, like rent control, and incorrect on others, like the gold standard, and that the prudent thing for a pluralistic society would be to adopt their best ideas and insights, rather than preemptively declaring all libertarian economic ideas unrealistic.
Prostitution is moving online whether governments like it or not. If they try to get in the way of the shift they will do harm. Indeed, the unrealistic goal of ending the sex trade distracts the authorities from the genuine horrors of modern-day slavery (which many activists conflate with illegal immigration for the aim of selling sex) and child prostitution (better described as money changing hands to facilitate the rape of a child). Governments should focus on deterring and punishing such crimes—and leave consenting adults who wish to buy and sell sex to do so safely and privately online.
Compared to virtually all comedians today, Williams was a gentleman. He certainly wasn’t a jerk in the mode of Johnny Carson or Seinfeld. Nor did he content himself with ironically orbiting life with sad eyes in the mode of Bill Murray. He was hardly ever gratuitously gross, because he knew, even as a performer, he had grown-up responsibilities. Even though, in my opinion, Louis C.K. is funnier and maybe deeper, he has a lot to learn about being a grown-up, to say nothing of a gentleman.
Williams, apparently, never achieved in his own life the self-confidence and self-knowledge of his best characters. He seemed never to have been quite comfortable in his own skin. Too much restlessness and not enough serenity. He was a great man.
Sprašujem se, kam bomo prišli, če bodo duhovniki med najsvetejšim obredom licitirali za stranke. To ni v skladu z doktrino Cerkve v odnosu do politike. Tudi, če bi hodili v Cerkev pripadniki samo ene stranke, bi bil proti temu, da se med evangelijem in povzdigovanjem daje politična navodila, kaj šele pod pretnjo greha. Ne samo zato, ker temu nasprotuje Cerkev sama in ker ne maram, da se razodeta resnica meša s političnim interesom. Vprašljivo se mi zdi, z duhovno avtoriteto v času govornega monopola (med mašo), pozivati politično različne vernike k strankarski podpori. Duhovnik tudi nima pooblastila govoriti v imenu vernikov o strankarskih zadevah – ne samo pri maši. Nekateri so me takoj obtožili, da oporekam duhovnikom pravico do mnenja. Seveda so duhovniki politična bitja z vsemi pravicami, potrebno pa je razlikovati, kaj je delo za vrednote, za pravico in poštenje, za politiko v širšem smislu, kaj pa opredeljevanje za stranko in aktivizem zanjo. Eno je menje, volilno navodilo pa je nekaj bistveno drugega.
Mogoče so hoteli predstavniki katoliške hierarhije nenadoma pokazati, da so bili ves čas na pravi strani poosamosvojitvene zgodovine. Bojim se namreč, da bi pogled od blizu velikokrat pokazal nezdravo navezanost na Cerkvi morda nenaklonjene, a z realno močjo obložene sile. Loščenje te nelepe podobe pa, kot kaže, ni bilo učinkovito. V javnosti je samo še okrepilo že tako zakoreninjeno prepričanje, da sodijo vsi katoličani na desno in k Janši. Čeravno ne prvo in še zlasti ne drugo ni nikdar držalo.
Calling on conservatives to write fiction in order to regain power by shaping the moral imagination, as Bellow seems to claim, would, in my view, repeat the errors of the later avant-garde and progressives who came to view art as a weapon in class struggle. This attitude toward art always leads to art becoming a mere tool, a mere means to an end, rather than an end in itself. Bellow tries to distinguish between the “the original counterculture” and a counterculture that “was hijacked and turned into a vehicle for progressive politics,” but I don’t buy this. The problem with Bellow’s approach, as Rod [Dreher] remarked two weeks ago, is that it would most likely lead to ideologically “pure” but bad work.
The real foes of conservatism are not socialism and liberalism, but the reactionary and innovating mentalities. Neither the reactionary nor the innovator share the joie de vivre of the conservative mind—its natural inclination to rejoice in and savor what is. They are restless and tormented if things are not in a state of perpetual flux, if “progress” is not being made either backward toward an imagined age of innocence, or forward toward an imagined age of future liberation. If nothing is changing, then nothing is happening. Reactionaries and innovators eschew what Oakeshott calls the conservative mind’s “cool and critical” attitude toward change, advocating instead a radical overhaul of society and its refashioning in the image of a golden age which is either imagined to have existed in the past or lusted after as a possible future.
Since the conflict in eastern Ukraine began, Russian propaganda has sought to portray it as a civil war, an internecine Ukrainian conflict—a formulation that was a comfortable dissimulation for many European democracies that wanted to avoid disrupting their economic relations with Russia. With the downing of MH17, the fighting in eastern Ukraine has been globalized into a war that has claimed the lives of western Europeans, Asians, and North Americans. It has place under unprecedented international scrutiny Russia’s central role as the backbone of the fighting in Eastern Ukraine and has stripped the mask off Russian subterfuge and propaganda.
The Economist editors want to put the liberal state on a starvation diet. Theirs is a diagnosis that identifies symptoms, but if applied as policy medicine might just kill the patient. The problem needs to be understood differently. The modern state may be too large in some areas, like the US military, because legacy commitments have not been examined in the light of emerging strategic requirements; or because, in a few countries, still powerful public sector unions retain a hammerlock on human resource budgets; or in others because predatory elected elites are siphoning revenues into their own pockets. But in other liberal states, honest and well-administered governments are staggering along without the resources to provide citizens with valuable and needed services.
What lessons does Switzerland offer? A strong doctrine of subsidiarity, whereby tasks should be done at the lowest possible level of government. Cantons have ceded powers to the confederation piecemeal (its right to raise taxes must be reviewed periodically), but have also devolved them to communes. All three levels of government have taxation powers and provisions for issues to be decided by referendum. German economists also point to Switzerland’s mechanisms to control public spending and enforce a no-bail-out rule. The big difference, though, is that cantons have drafted their own balanced-budget rules and voters have forced similar ones on the confederation. The euro zone imposed too much austerity on troubled countries, but Switzerland has shown that running surpluses and paying back debt in good times creates more scope to respond in a crisis.
Barring minor adjustments, the Orban project proceeds steadily. The prime minister has centralised power to a degree unprecedented since the collapse of communism. A report by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe notes that, though there was a “diverse choice” of parties at April’s election, Fidesz benefited from “restrictive campaign regulations, biased media coverage and campaign activities that blurred the separation between political party and state”.
Some accuse Mr Orban of looking admiringly east at the state-controlled crony capitalism of the former Soviet Union. Certainly, there is talk on the nationalist right, from Fidesz to the far-right Jobbik, of the decline of the West. The government has boosted Hungary’s trade links with Russia, China, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan.
Traditionally, moral thinking about war is divided into two broad questions. First, we ask whether the decision to go to war was a moral one.In doing so, we ask: Are the reasons for the war morally compelling? Were less-destructive alternatives considered and pursued?
For Israel, the first question seems easier to answer. Few would deny that, in principle, Israel’s war with Hamas is both just and necessary. Israel acts on the most clear justification possible: self-defense after days of restraint, warnings, and pleas—as rockets continued to land on its cities and later, as militants sprang from tunnels to kill its citizens. Ceasefires have been offered, but Hamas has rejected them. And whatever criticisms one may have of Israel’s failures to midwife an effective and peaceful alternative to Hamas (and I have many), these do not undermine the fundamental justice of this self-defense.
But there is also a second, larger question: How should wars be fought? And here, Israel runs into a problem.
Berating Jews with their own history, disinheriting them of pity, as though pity is negotiable or has a sell-by date, is the latest species of Holocaust denial, infinitely more subtle than the David Irving version with its clunking body counts and quibbles over gas-chamber capability and chimney sizes. Instead of saying the Holocaust didn’t happen, the modern sophisticated denier accepts the event in all its terrible enormity, only to accuse the Jews of trying to profit from it, either in the form of moral blackmail or downright territorial theft. According to this thinking, the Jews have betrayed the Holocaust and become unworthy of it, the true heirs to their suffering being the Palestinians. Thus, here and there throughout the world this year, Holocaust day was temporarily annulled or boycotted on account of Gaza, dead Jews being found guilty of the sins of live ones.
Anti-Semitism? Absolutely not. It is “criticism” of Israel, pure and simple.
From the classical Muslim perspective, the dhimma reflects the fact that Christians, as the recipients of an earlier, incomplete revelation, merit some protection and communal autonomy. But there is a price. The jizya and the many dhimma restrictions are meant to keep Christians in their place and provide a salutary incentive for them to convert to Islam.
By last week, most Christians in Mosul had already taken a fourth option—evacuation. Their departure marks the end of a continuous Christian tradition in Mosul. For thousands of years, Mosul has been a center for Christians, particularly for Assyrians, an ethnic group that predates the Arab conquest of Mesopotamia. Indeed, the ancient Assyrian capital of Nineveh, where the Prophet Jonah preached, lies across the Tigris River. Christianized in apostolic times, Assyrians have divided over the centuries into a number of communions that reflect the history of the religion: the Assyrian Church of the East, a small body, historically associated with Nestorianism, which once spread as far as China; the Syriac Orthodox Church, a member of the Oriental Orthodox family; and the Chaldean-rite Catholic Church, in communion with Rome. A small number of Assyrian Protestant churches exist as well, the legacy of nineteenth-century American missionaries.
As recently as a decade ago, tens of thousands of Christians lived in Mosul, some of them descendents of victims of the genocide the Ottoman Empire perpetrated against Assyrians, as well as Armenians and Greeks, during World War I. After this weekend, virtually none remain.
In What Is Marriage? my coauthors and I try to present these traditions’ central insight in the thesis that what makes a marriage (and provides the intelligible grounds of its structuring norms) is comprehensive union. We begin by noting that any voluntary bond is created by common action—by cooperative activity, defined by common goods, in the context of commitment. The activities and goods build up the bond and determine the commitment it requires. Then we argue that the kind of union created by marriage is comprehensive in just these ways: in (a) how it unites persons, (b) what it unites them with respect to, and (c) how extensive a commitment it demands. That is, it unites two people (a) in their most basic dimensions, in mind and body; (b) with respect to procreation, family life, and its broad domestic sharing; and (c) permanently and exclusively.
You contend that same-sex partners could be united in just these ways. But clarifying each will show that they cannot be—unless we so stretch the criteria as to erase any principled difference between marriage and companionship.
Sanjam o družbeno angažiranem mecenu, ki se bo, kot so to počeli pametni in etični bogati gospodje v 19. stoletju, odločil kupiti enega izmed obstoječih ali pa – precej bolj logično – ustanoviti svoj medij, s katerim bo »izpolnil svojo moralno dolžnost«.
Sanjam o internetnem dnevnem časopisu, ki bi imel svojo tedensko tiskano izdajo v obliki bogatega, s kontekstom, vrhunskimi reportažami, analizami in intervjuji napolnjenega magazina, katerega vsaka številka bi bila posvečena le eni sami temi.
Sanjam zagnane, zagrizene, etične in že skoraj do roba norosti razgledane in vedoče sodelavce in sodelavke, s katerimi bi dnevno izmenjavali tako funkcije – v resnih ekipah mora vsak igralec dobro igrati vsaj na treh ali štirih pozicijah – kot informacije in ideje.
Bonus za tiste, ki berete italijansko: članek ob 22. letnici umora tožilca Paola Borsellina:
“L’equivoco su cui spesso si gioca è questo: si dice quel politico era vicino ad un mafioso, quel politico è stato accusato di avere interessi convergenti con le organizzazioni mafiose, però la magistratura non lo ha condannato, quindi quel politico è un uomo onesto. E NO! questo discorso non va, perché la magistratura può fare soltanto un accertamento di carattere giudiziale, può dire: beh! Ci sono sospetti, ci sono sospetti anche gravi, ma io non ho la certezza giuridica, giudiziaria che mi consente di dire quest’uomo è mafioso. Però, siccome dalle indagini sono emersi tanti fatti del genere, altri organi, altri poteri, cioè i politici, le organizzazioni disciplinari delle varie amministrazioni, i consigli comunali o quello che sia, dovevano trarre le dovute conseguenze da certe vicinanze tra politici e mafiosi che non costituivano reato ma rendevano comunque il politico inaffidabile nella gestione della cosa pubblica. Questi giudizi non sono stati tratti perché ci si è nascosti dietro lo schermo della sentenza: questo tizio non è mai stato condannato, quindi è un uomo onesto. Ma dimmi un poco, ma tu non ne conosci di gente che è disonesta, che non è stata mai condannata perché non ci sono le prove per condannarla, però c’è il grosso sospetto che dovrebbe, quantomeno, indurre soprattutto i partiti politici a fare grossa pulizia, non soltanto essere onesti, ma apparire onesti, facendo pulizia al loro interno di tutti coloro che sono raggiunti comunque da episodi o da fatti inquietanti, anche se non costituenti reati”.
Pred meseci je Patrick J. Deneen v reviji The American Conservative objavil zanimiv pregled sodobnih trendov v ameriški katoliški politični misli.
Deneen izhaja iz ugotovitve, da je delitev na liberalni in konservativni katolicizem preveč shematična in ne ustreza stvarnosti. To pa zato, ker »liberalni katolicizem«, poosebljen v katoliški politični eliti Demokratske stranke (od podpredsednika Joea Bidena, prek državnega sekretarja Kerryja do prve linije predstavnikov velikih metropol vzhodne obale), ne obstaja kot koherentno politično gibanje in nima nobene vloge v razpravah, ki se odvijajo v množici raznolikih katoliških občestev širom ZDA.